tv Key Capitol Hill Hearings CSPAN May 16, 2014 12:00pm-2:01pm EDT
>> guest: he has a number of good points. the actual reasons why the carriers might actually have incentives to restrict it doesn't apply to all providers but obviously they have some kind of video or cable service could view netflix as a competitor although if you go to the cable industry increasingly you would hear them talk about selfless broadband providers and the profit is increasingly coming from that side but there is that incentives and other services they might want to offer to compete with other
providers they might want to offer storage type of philosophies to compete with amazon or other storage capacity. they also have incentives it easier to charge the differentiating out among the various people that want to use the capacity to make more money that way than to fill that capacity at possibly be charging them less because now you don't have to demand constrained. some people are going to pay more for more like room on the airplane. they can charge some people a little bit more because some people value a little bit more comfort so whereas the average person would say i can't pay another $50 for this i'm just going to have to muddle along.
>> host: you used to terms. >> guest: title 02 is the common carrier status. >> guest: >> host: it became the proposal -- >> guest: to classify them as telecommunication services. the providers are allowed to be regulated as common carriers under federal law. >> guest: kind of buried in the document is one sentence that says alternatively to classify them as telecommunication providers we cut ourselves redefine what common carriage days and therefore if we said it doesn't include the things we want to do to these companies, the court would no longer have a reason for saying common carriage is no longer what it meant in the past so there's multiple ways.
it says it is to promote the internet. >> guest: they should encourage the deployment of the capability into the fcc argument that the court accepted as there is a circle that if the providers are allowed to rate and provide things consumers want they would want my broadband. hispanic the internet congressional caucus committee thanks everybody for coming. this briefing is called the grand internet plan and massive global options what do you need to know and the reason we did this is because yesterday the commission issued to plans dealing with open internet or so-called net neutrality along
with a plan to roll out more spectrum for the devices so that we have better broadband when we are on our mobile devices so they are important no matter which way you feel about that particular issue and we want to brief the consumers and members of congress on the development so that's what we are doing here today. today we are going to use hash tag fcc net neutrality into the next briefing going forward is probably next friday but it will be on the efficacy of the nsa surveillance program so i will send a notice about that. we are going to bifurcate this into first talking about the open internet plan for the first half-hour or so and then pitch
to a couple oit to a couple of o lay out the option and we will try to do some q-and-a at the end of each session so please feel free to ask any questions you'd like and you can pull them out and sit anywhere you like. really quickly that introduced the speaker on the first session we have a partner that is from the federal communications commission working with commissioner abernathy and then we have sarah morris who is with the new america foundation they are different people so keep that in mind this isn't the same. but we have a partner at johnson and gus hurdle if the professor at the university of nebraska
college of law. a diverse set of speakers. if anybody hasn't heard about it or what it is i don't think we need to go into much detail but it's the idea everybody should have their applications into their services to be treated kind of equally and how that happens has been a torture so they laid out the plan yesterday on the notice of proposed rulemaking and i'm going to ask you to tell us how we got here and after the dc circuit court struck down the previous
chairman this is like another crack taking cues from the decisions of chairman wheeler had a vote of 3-to order at least two of them in favor, one of them concurring in the two against. we are going to ask what happened now. so we have a context of understanding what the fcc did yesterday. it's a cynic so everyone knows e incoming i've been involved for a long time from 2001 to 2005 and worked on some of the earlier proceedings and i've been representing a lot of network owners that have an interest in the operators and
others. i will try to get through the background because it's helpful to understand how we got to today and one of them is back to 2002 when he first confronted hothey first confrontedhow to cd services over cable networks as they were often called at the time and the debate at that time was whether the services as it was amended and 96 whether they should be considered telecommunication services subject to title to or information services which are generally regulated and often referred to as title i. they are usually exclusive categories and basically consist of transitions is to make a telephone are more advanced data services when they are moving
within that content so when you are retrieving the information is considered under the statute and with the fcc said his broadband internet access was provided there was an information service that while transmission was involved between remote servers from internet service providers it should be regulated as a service not subject to title to that obligation of the adjusted reasonable services and service quality and none of those mandates apply to broadband
internet access. the fcc started to think about what sort of protections might accompany an information service. the initial wasn't about the rules for protecting consumers they were known as open access and wanted to make sure they have a right of passage int into that were lots of debates so that third party would be step in and serve the customers and they were never adopted although they were deleted for years and what emerged was the foundation for the neutrality debate so we have principles at first consumers should have access without being blocked by the provider if they should have access to services to be able to
attach devices and eventually they codified principles in 2005 as a statement of the expectations and i understand that commissioner would monitor. several years later allegations that comcast throttled traffic in the bread that it could pitch toward catalog they brought an action under the policy statement that resulted in the first court case and in the case the court struck down the order saying they didn't have binding rules or justify under the statute it opened in that case went up to the dc circuit again
and was reversed that decision. it was upheld in its transparency requirements required of them to disclose important information about their practices but its regulations thait'sregulations d regulating traffic and discrimination in various forms and that has brought us to yesterday's rulemaking. hispanic i forgot in my about about our process we host these in conjunction with the caucuses themselves into the congresswoman with senator john thune and patrick leahy proposition for this particular program is that the organization doesn't take any positions on legislation it's a really good issue to illustrate that.
all we do is balance discussions on these issues because the entrance as important an is imps to be preserved and cherished so i applaud the cochair for supporting the program even though they themselves disagree on these particular issues i would like to thank them and explain that as our processing as far as the fcc. hispani >> again i'm at th i met the nea college wall where i teach international regulation and we have a great program with some really outstanding graduates doing important work in these fields that is a quick plug because sarah is one of our graduates. i'm going to talk about the process moving forward and
quickly start by putting a pin in the point of the comcast case it's a question we might want to come back to how the case might have come out if they previously interpreted 706 indicates they previously said they didn't so we might want to come back to that question what happened on thursday the commission decided to drop the notice of the proposed rulemaking and the chairman has been very clear over the last couple of weeks beginning of the process. it's a bit peculiar because it was prior to the meeting was supposed to be discussed and adopted so it has been somewhat premature until today so what
happens when the commission adopts for those of you and i hope that most of you in the room are familiar with the administrative procedure act, this is governed by ordinary agency procedures that apply to all agencies for the most part. the agency has adopted the proposed rules. at this point a public comment appeared to is open and the rulemaking process is referred to as comment and the agency has given public notice and is waiting for comment. over the next days the agency will be accepting public comment and following that up about 60 days through 100 it is a 100 k. period for the reply comments so they can submit comments prior to july 15 through september 10.
it's probably too early to separate from fac critique. >> it's never appropriate to suffer from that. >> there will be members that will be signing letters during the process and making comments as well as holding hearings. hispanic one of the things given the substantial tryst in the subject, they have been adopting the nonstandard mechanisms for the public comment so there is an e-mail address that will continue to be used in the comment period where the public can comment instead of going through the ordinary pilot system. so that's an interesting procedural innovation that procedure has put in place. what happens after all of these comments are received.
the commission will do one of three things. it will throw its hands up in the air and say forget about it we aren't going to make rules here. it's could happen. the next alternative is to take a look at all of the comments received and go back into deliberate and start drafting a final rule and it will b there e issued probably sometime at the end of the year. the final rules that are issued will need to be foreseeable from the proposed rules that were announced yesterday so they need to be the same of the outgrowth of what is in the mpr in. for the commissioner cannot just make up new rules, they have to be an outgrowth of what was announced yesterday.
>> so when we too talk about 706 authority granted and then also title to, there's openings. said to be a bit more precise, a self it is currently proposing to use section 706 but it is accepting either title to our title for and wireless and hybrid approaches such as submitted to the agency as professors from columbia universities. i think most people know what professors those are the. it was at the a logical
outgrowth. aso the third thing after the deadline is we need to think about this more and issue a further notice of proposed rulemaking which is just another in prm. so what happened yesterday will happen again and we will go through another comment cycle, and that can happen many times. it's public isn't going to happen in this case. he and power it did yesterda bus very good and outlining possible evidence. so there is interesting information there but -- connect to quickly summarize it looks like the mpr for the open internet is a kind of consumer choice between services and have a big s. consumer about riot.
this kind of window blocking rule consistent with things. there is a limit on the privatization and that is a big question we want to get into. the chair and said there would be no speaking. we want to discuss that. then there's the transparency and he laid out with the transparency element was before and there was some kind of consumer, startup business component for business resolution and so you can dispute and ask for permission. that is a nutshell you can explain better than me. how do you feel like that certainly enhances or preserves its neutrality in the open internet or is this really a
disaster for the innovators on the intranet. >> sarah morris, senior counsel at the american enterprise. we have had open its neutrality since they will get both talked around in here and we ca come at this with a very strong concern that it's not just a platform for business models that for itself. as the commissioner pointed out yesterday very compellingly this isn't just about companies this is consumers and users and their ability to participate physically, socially and two
communicate with one another online. what this means is a general reaction i think the rulemaking while quite comprehensive in the questions predicates the rules of the legally shaky grounds and also the framework itself is difficult to apply in real life and will not afford the same type of protections that we saw so we are speaking very critically about what this means and ensure that we will get into this in more detail but our reaction now is that there is a long way to go.
>> as a communications lawyer i would say it is a phenomenal document. if you're thinking about getting into the communications it has everything you would want to tackle. it's raised questions to legal questions and technical questions. everyone believes in an open internet. that was clear in a meeting on thursday but this is so complicated i thought it was worth unpacking what' within the controversy and what is largely not and even though my notes start i thought i would start with generally what is not in controversy and based on the court cases we have seen and statements submitted and what's not and controversy are two things. one is the virtuous circle.
openness contributes to the broadband and innovation by the internet companies and investment in the network and the fcc goes through examples since what happened about further shore up the theory and they thought that they have adequatelhadadequately explainet reasoning and justified it. the second issue that is not in controversy is broadband providers have the incentive and ability to limit openness and they adequately support it and explained their reasoning so then we get into what is the controversy then?
first it is whether how the prioritization is clearer on this and whether there should be a model that adopts. it encourages individual negotiations for the paid arrangements. the second piece at controversy is what part of the system that just broadband internet access should be subject to the rules. and then there are some folks interested also in addressing
where the cable company attaches to the internet itself so those will also be debated on where the rules should apply. the commission said that they are not going to change the scope in that regard. they will provide a broadband internet access from blocking the website and blog in applications that compete via telephone services that they will not get into consideration issues which largely are not in play if they address the current framework. the second issue of the controversy of the scope of the rules the second. that's why the commission bases this authority of the statute
directs the commission to take necessary steps broadband adoption they would say the commission has a ground to move forward since the dc circuit said so. they have the voice of the telephony statute tha that can e the obligations that is the title to framework and the commission raises questions about that. the third is whether they anchor this in the rules and the statutes that apply in the blast, there could be other theories of jurisdiction whether it is they saw the cable statutes that they can use to justify some part of the rules so there's been a lot that's been in the news about the legal
foundation but i think it's about into focus some of this thabut has a lot of controversyn the scope and that's why the rules and the order that accompanies them are so long because there's a lo there is af controversy and a lot has been asked. >> there's a lot at the table. i agree with what a lot of what was said. in terms of the things that are not in controversy i wouldn't agree that everyone would say broadband providers have an incentive to cause harm. many of my clients that provide services operate in a competitive environment to provide the best possible service to their customers and they understand if they did something harmful there would be a price to pay in the
marketplace and most of us can realize today the old vic samples that were trotted out is the basis for the next neutrality rules would never happen. what if a provider g.i. access to amazon.com and shifted to barnes and noble.com or if a provider shifted your attempts to reach a certain website affiliate there would be a massive consumer backlash and it just wouldn't occur in today's marketplace. there are extensive that providers would never engage in this behavior and they've never intended to. i mean, there are fair debates out debate about whether the arrangements that can be called discrimination or novel and innovative business arrangements with that those are good or bad or incentives to engage and a
lot of the action is going to be about the prioritization that should be regulated or not regulated. there could be good to prioritizatioprioritization froe standpoint of those that were bad. the chairman and his press conference yesterday said he has access to the telephone network as an emergency government officials and we should all maintain that sort of thing or imagine a service where there is telephone service owing on with a heart surgeon in the city consulting with a patient in a remote area and what's imagined that application needs with high bandwidth it would seem logical to prioritize the traffic over other traffic that are less latency for example. ..
case-by-case judgments about the appropriateness of certain behaviors and i think that makes sense. one part i think is missing, and one mention of the scope, is if we are worried about consumers having access to the content of their choosing, the threat for that openness certainly don't come only from broadband internet access providers. interested in hearing groups that are arguing for open
internet, protections seldom talk about threats from outside of broadband. we are real-world examples growing all the time the last year and this year retransmission consent disputes a program tariff disputes, content owners have withheld content from customers to essentially punish a cable provider that will come to terms. often consumers are collateral damage. they couldn't get access during a dispute between cbs and time warner cable because cbs withheld it from internet access, addressability time warner cable even those those customers were not time warner video customers. they may have been over the air, directv subscribers. the odd thing from my perspective is those who support a role for government and promoting openness don't seem to be talking about those sorts of combats which are not hypothetical. they are occurring.
so i think if we're going to have a debate about the role of government and this government is going to make judgments about what discrimination is good or bad come it's hard to have that debate without looking at other players in the ecosystem, without looking at whether a content owner or other service providers are themselves acting in ways that violated these principles. >> i wasn't expecting to your free transition can send in this discussion. i have thousands of questions. gaza, you want to address the elephant in the room? >> i will address several elephants in the room. first i want to start by saying mr. brill is a wise and learned then and you should listen to everything he says. i would've brought up consent as an example and i'll start -- i guess the metaphor, let's say google says they're not going to bother fees, the analogy is google would not allow time
warner can't use it. time warner cable can't use it but cox can. >> right. or netflix could say we will get a better deal or we'll cut you off. it's an interesting history. the bottom line baseline to take away from this history is the contents i very frequently has as much or more market power down the distribution site. but we as a society, we like the contents i. it seems valuable to us so we can decide with his the content side and the distant vision stuff it's boring, copper in the grant mckee to go back and look at the 19th century, the telegraph cases, there were major litigation, congressional investigation of the early telegraph companies because it looked like they were acting as a competitively and harming the public and how they were treating them.
after an investigation once the government realized was this is really the news agencies who are the bad actors, and the entire investigation shifted. this is anyways the same dynamic of both the content side and dished patient's eye, these are big firms, big corporate entities. they are fighting stuff out very frequently the consumer gets stuck in the middle and very frequently we turn to carve our initial blame to the distribution guys because we like the content guys. then we realized it's the content guys who are exerted as much or more market power in the consumer hard way. to get back to the original question, this time down the line started is the open internet order a good thing or a bad thing. my general view here is it's a bad thing but for somewhat particular reason. we are going to no matter what this nation does, and les echoes for the option that i outlined
before initially that won't do you think of no, we will not do anything here, what's going to result from whatever the commission does is another probably two to four years of litigation followed by or simultaneous with two to four years of bickering over details of implementation just on jurisdiction and application issues without having a substantive issue before the commission. the commission today does have authority to take action against a wide range of net neutrality violations and probably anything that they could ultimately take action against, they could take action against today under section seven '03. -- so my question would be for the commission say we're not going to make rules or. were going to wait for a case-by-case, a real problem occur and adjust on a case-by-case basis. >> can you give examples of like walking in name that the fcc
right now in 76 authority given the comcast decision and given what they do, what dto thatauthority to do right n? >> the comcast example is a great example, because i think if the current understanding of section 706 as applying to the internet works, the interpretation of the time of the comcast case, that case very well could've come out quite differently. so the court there dismissed the case largely under fictional ground. the fcc didn't have jurisdiction to enforce its policy and there was discussion about the nature of a policy statement as binding rules. >> i'm confused. you're saying the content, d.c. circuit court says, like that it didn't have -- >> the fcc breezed new life into 706. the new order, the fcc said we are revising our prior
understanding of section 706 as not applying to the internet and is our new understanding that it does apply to the internet. and under basic principles of administrative law, agencies can change their prior interpretation and infect are two important cases here that are both fcc cases. the first is fox one, fcc versus fox, 2007 case where justice scalia said agencies can change their prior interpretation of the organic statute. a previous interpretation doesn't bar them from doing so. and then fox 2, 82012 case where the agency, it was a continuation of the prior fox case where so long as entities subject to a case-by-case adjudication have noticed the agency might take action against them, the agency can take action
against them. and they can change the rules. this dates back through january 2, going back 60 years. >> are we going to get to the elephant in the room? >> yes, yes. >> we are enlightening around. >> lightning round. basically i agree with matt. the question of section 706, this is a knob adjusting and one in the agency's burden of proof with the level of formality the agencies to go through in order to enforce this statute. the key question with title ii is the unjust and unreasonable discrimination provision. there's a safety valve, expressed language saying it doesn't really. italy privet unjust and unreachable discrimination, and then a supreme court case law that is expressed language that would need to be given meaning. >> i have a ton of question. i do want to go to the audience for some questions. >> can i respond?
>> in the meantime get your questions ready. a fellow from c-span will come around with the boom mic. >> i want to talk about what's different in these rules versus what was in the 20 or and why that's important, particularly in light of this dialogue that has started to unfold about the beauty pageant of whether we like to content providers or isps more and why, why the distinctions matter from a pure economic standpoint. so i wanted to point out something that he think is interesting from a structural standpoint of the proposed rulemaking, where the commission is trying to sort of track the pockets that held the rules in the 2010 order that was the transparency welcome the no blocking rule and the nondiscrimination rule. interestingly, they talk about the transparency rule and some adjustments they will make. they propose to make you. the no blocking rule as modified
and we talk about specifics if folks would like, instead of going to the nondiscrimination will be to to codifying an enforceable rule to protect the open internet that is not common carriage per se. this is important because this represents a really critical distinction that the d.c. circuit pointed out, which was you can do the rules fcc that you wanted to do in the 2010 order but you can't give them, you can't apply them to non-common carriers. this is why the fcc is sort of bending over backwards trying to figure out how to both protect against discrimination online a to do so in a way that allows individualized marketing and negotiation by carriers. so it's trying to do not discrimination through rules that are essentially perfect against the opposite, by the opposite of nondiscrimination. and that's important, getting back to point that markham at the beginning about things that
are not, let's say, controversial from a legal standpoint in terms of what the 2010 order said and what the d.c. circuit, you know, sort of agreed with. and that is that there is a risk of discrimination by internet service providers that could interfere with the advancement of the deployment of advanced telecommunications services online. and i want to talk about a bit about why that's true. when you have a broadband subscription in your home you typically only have one for residential home broadband. you to subscribe to both comcast and rcn in d.c. you pick one. so that greece what we call eight committing acts has been of late, where to reach each subscriber of a given internet service providers network, a content company has to negotiate or summit interconnect and transmit their content to the
end-user. they can do that in the number of different ways and we can talk about those later as well, so the terminating access monopoly is important. some of the other panelists might say the monopoly is fiction because people have cell phones and have all these other tablets, but i think we can all sort of think about this as reasonable people. i'm not going to watch -- if i have a home broadband system are not going to use my 4g service over my cell phone to watch netflix videos. might resource of connectivity at my home is my wide isp. i might use my phone, sometimes i use my phone to watch videos at night but i do so not over my verizon 4g data plan. i do so over my wi-fi enabled network at home. and that's all we are concerned. we are not concerned suffered because we don't like isps. nothing against isps inherently but i do have concerns about the way that the internet is structured and the
way that we've seen historically internet service providers take advantage of their status in the market as terminating access to operate. so i wanted to open not too much time but i wanted to clarify the concern here and why a specific view to internet service providers. providers. >> but we are in the lightning round. we have to get -- you wanted to respond to something, i'll do this lighting version so couple of quick points first. verizon hates me. i do watch a lot of netflix over my verizon 4g. but i understand that everyone can do that. agreeing with sarah, the lack of competition is real and important, and i think that is where real effort should be focused. so i think largely as we get competition, net neutrality got concerns fall away and the question is, the basic title ii debate is largely driven by two world.
one is competition is not possible. so when you title ii. the other is competition is possible. we don't need title ii. we need to focus on competition. i want to respond also to an economic argument that both markham answer have major and this was back to the idea to the virtuous circle. the virtuous circle is absolutely correct. it can also go the other way. the real problem here is virtuous circle describes was not as a two-sided market and the economic literature very, very consistently holds and unabated sleep ambiguous results. page prioritization can harm consumers but it also can benefit substantially consumers. going to a strong title ii model where foreclosing the possibly of certain business plans that could benefit consumers and spit it can ask you to clarify? matt made it very well what title ii was but that seems to
be a lot in the press, a lot of conversation title ii is common carriage. it's been around for 80 years and over that time common carriage in telecommunications has a lot of things attached to it like over the years layers and layers and layers of regulation. sometimes be with her we're going back 80 years rather than innovating. what do they mean by that and why is that not a problem? quickly and then maybe markham can say that's not a problem. >> the basic question with title ii is we don't know what will happen. title ii has a lot of provisions that would by virtue of reclassification automatically apply to the internet ecosystem and the fcc would be to go the process of weeding most of them. they would be -- >> forbearance. >> it would be to go through forbearance process. they would be a lot of fights. as countries develop new business plans, this is an important transition that i'm about to suggest, if agencies want to develop new business plans they might need to go to
the fcc and affirmatively get approval through forbearance which can take up to 15 months in order to develop new business plans. >> i've heard -- >> if you innovate and it's bad you get sued. >> so innovation by permission, do you think that is right, markham? >> one thing is great if there is literature that says it's a two-sided market can be beneficial and that's were i disagree with sarah and i think chairman wheeler i think louis in -- is embracing. is a country out of way to get out of it. he's arguing or proposing that they can be benefits. he's not saying it should necessarily be the norm, that the of the base level of service and would be paid prioritization. i think that debate, whether the scope of the rules i think has to be a predicate before we get into whether we want to be at 706 or title ii or some other category. it's hard to say which theory i would jump to until you first
decide what decision -- what version for the image would like to have. the commission has proposed the questions on whether they think of from italy paid prioritization and those models are good or not, the 2010 didn't prohibit% hate privatization but he gave a strong indication that paid prioritization would be frowned upon heavily if look at. so i think that the first part, the and to the first question will necessarily inform the answer to the second question. >> couple points on title ii. i think there a lot of misconceptions about it. one is it's not a policy driven choice the fcc has total discretion to me. some advocates talked to this, if were not happen with the content of the rules we will just pick title ii to drive a certain result. that's not how the law works. what the fcc did in classifying cable modem service in 2002 and dsl and other wireline, fiber in
2005, wireless services and all other forms there after was to look closely at how the services provided to the consumer. analyze the function and to make a tactical determination of how that fits under the communications act. the supreme court affirmed it the supreme court affirmed on that basis saying it's a factual particulars of the service that drive the classification. the fcc can't just disregard fact and say we would prefer a different outcome. and to be sure if the fcc had a record showing that internet service is provided to fully today and functions are not what they were, that might justify a different result but i don't think that's the case. the technologists i talked to said there's nothing fundamentally different about the with internet services are structured. that's one important thing to keep in mind. but also, there is an in the amount of baggage with title ii. it has historical required services, price relations, service quality regulation and just and intensely revelatory
framework that many people feel is ill-suited for the dynamic competitive internet ecosystem. the fcc has tried to address those concerns but i think we can forbear or waive some of these provisions but in my experience having been at the fcc and having been an advocate before the fcc, that would generate a ton of uncertainty about whether that forbearance is going to work, whether it will stick, whether a court will uphold it, so a lot of the uncertainty is a concern. and, finally, there is a huge spillover risk. if the fcc looks at transmission in internet access to try to pull it out, that will be viewed henceforth as a separate regulated common carriage telecom service. everybody else in the internet ecosystem is providing transmission, so content delivery networks, backbone providers, cogent level three that have always been providing services on an uncredited basis outside of title ii, and even edge providers large ones with their own networks like google
and facebook and many others all our providing transmission to get the content from servers -- civility and enormous destabilizing risk if you're going to say one peace within and it will be regulated for the first time as a telecom service, the many other forms of internet transmissions likewise might be regulated as telecom services. from my standpoint having watched this to get the fcc wants to achieve certain protections and we now have a rough consensus, a lot of broadband provider went to agree on certain baseline nobody rolls and certain review procedures -- no blocking rules, and otherwise appropriate arrangement, i think we can forge a consensus around a title ii is something that won't ever lead consensus but it leads to tremendous uncertainty and fighting. >> so matt has hit on a very interesting point which i think is in many ways one of the
things that will be the undercurrent of the debate which is where do you want to see certainty like? at&t in its arguments said that they think there's too much uncertainty with the commercial reasonableness standard and said it will lead to their litigation over the deals that they arranged an uncertainty about what kind of arrangements they get into. they propose a safe harbor that says that it is not affiliated come if they are not engaging in an agreement with an affiliated provide or is not affiliated content, that there should be some sort of rule that that would be okay as long as there's a baseline of internet service. they want to put a finger uncertainty there. so i think we are, we've had 10 years of litigation and will making because this is, it is a debate about where the uncertainty lies. is a with consumers, that may be nervous about access to the
content in the same way that got me? edge providers that are nervous that they have to pay more or be forced into relationships to pay when they haven't before? isps that maybe work that they may be for close to potential revenue sources are whether under title ii the fcc can get the forbearance issues right. i would argue that's where, it's going to be impossible to get to consensus about all of those and it's the job of the regular to figure out to bridge those gaps after the right policy has been determined. >> speaking of forbearance, we were supposed to start the spectrum round five minutes ago. so tim donovan and allison come a few more minutes, i did ask, i would grant a few question. does anyone in the audience have a question for the open internet folks? they will bring a boom mike mike over to you. you will not hear it but it is life. just raise your hand and ask a question.
>> the netflix deal, i heard that the netflix the comcast deal in fact does not touch the internet, that it's a private line between -- so it's from netflix to the comcast. in terms of paid prioritization, we people in fact be able to do these deals with direct to direct line by bypassing the quote public internet? >> i think i will let the legal experts answer that. probably like paragraph 89 or 90 but i will say when chairman wheeler was walking out and some from the press asked him about that specific question, he said this does not apply to the netflix deal. >> i agree with that and let me explain why quickly. these open internet rules are aimed at governing the connection between the internet service provider and the consumer can what's often called
the last mile. when we talk in that context, the paid privatization what we are saying is that at&t should not be allowed to cut a deal with netflix that will speed up the delivery of netflix traffic over that last mile compared to other services. now will have a debate about whether such an arrangement in some circumstances might be reasonable. but the interconnection between networks, between netflix directly with comcast or between comcast with an intermediary like a cogent is something the fcc said it outside of these roles. is often called the appearing debate. those are likely to be scrutinized in other contexts, a lot of activity around that at the fcc but i think the chairman has said definitively it's not part of the net neutrality proceeding. i think that's the correct approach. >> just jump in. >> i represent netflix so i will give you full disclosure on that but i would say although the chairman has proposed not to
extend the rules to the interconnection agreements, it does ask whether it should do so. and the argument for those who say it should come let's say you have rules that prevent some kind of arrangement where in the last mile at&t or isp is not able to extract a new charge from the edge provider, the content provider but they could do so outside of the last mile, so they're able to accomplish outside of the last mile but they couldn't a college inside the last mile. that's the article i should be be extended. whether the fcc will agree with that view or not or whether they think it has to be any different proceeding we don't know yet but certainly there will be advocates of this it has to be, those issues have to be addressed in this meeting. >> i think the fact that the netflix comcast of arrangement is coming up as a controversy in light of the net neutrality debate is evidence eight that the network neutrality rule
works in that they protected the network on the last mile for the end-user from unreasonable discrimination, and, in fact, that discriminatory behavior and pressure points move completed to different point in the network. and so the worry here is that they can give the internet service providers terminating access monopoly to the end-user, that is, they are the only high to the individual user, they have the ability to not just extract fees from content companies or whoever but they can extract fees that are not grounded in market-driven rates. they can essentially charge a pool based on what they believe they can charge. >> just want to respond quickly because i just think that's fundamentally wrong. i think it's important to understand that there isn't one pipe that netflix has available and i think what made this deal possible is mark place where netflix, comcast has 42nd --
40 roots. with content delivery networks. historically, netflix has used all of those routes to transmit traffic to it pursued its own economic benefit to cutting out the middleman but instead of relying on a cogent coming up with an arrangement in which it did it directly, it lowers its cost structure. no one made netflix did it. netflix is saving money. i really resist the idea that someone net neutrality had anything to do with that or some of those in the coercion of the. think about it in comments as. netflix is in an ideal position with merger proceedings pending. if you want to use the regulatory process to avoid a deal like that it had enormous opportunity. they voluntarily went into a commercial of richmond because it was such a good deal for them. >> putting on my engine in hat for a moment, this is a devastation of an important point about the technical architecture of the internet. when you talk to the
technologists the images will take that the internet is not neutral. it isn't a concept that has a technological me. one of the reasons for it is the physical design of the network where you connect, interconnect has a great deal influence over how effectively different sources of traffic will be handled by the internet. i want to highlight that it's nothing new for netflix or for anyone to use a private connection to connect or bypass parts of the public network. this in fact is what level three business model in the content delivery business has been. they have a private fiber network they use to allow firms to bypass the congestion of the public internet, and latency issues and directly connect with the destination isps. that's not an engineer, from injury perspective and atypical sort of design. >> i think matt raises the
factual question which will have to be addressed in wilmington. if those routes are congested, if the program is so popular that you've used up all the capacity and the isp says that you will have to pay us to open up another port to gain the capacity, that's the first question. the second one is, is that rates subject to market forces or is the isp able to choose a number based on supercompetitive business model? so that will be the question. >> and a really nice twist on that is from an antitrust perspective we generally focus on power to set prices. netflix is in a different sort of decision. they are in a position to accept congestion because they represent such a significant portion of the traffic going through interconnection point that they have a different market power. they can really set the congestion level. >> that will be the question in the document.
>> you have been patient with me. i appreciated. there are some liquid to want to ask. there are like five questions in the audience. perhaps if the panelists stick around, and would go to the spectrum round, we can perhaps come at the end you can have questions with the open internet folks. i think going forward, there are many questions, still things in this order that i don't even find the understand. so when i hear that congressional staff feel like they understand or they have the metaphor right about what the open internet order is, i think it's a deeper dive. these issues are very, very important and it could have consequences one way or the other even if you don't take a position on it. we will keep doing this as we go forward, ask forgiveness -- we
will be doin doing more briefint a go for. i want to thank the open internet folks, but quickly to the other thing the fcc commission digester day which was basically the direction of congress was to find ways to open up spectrum again. this is about having more robust internet services. on the right side of the table there's a concern perhaps that we won't get access to the services for whatever reason, maybe bad behavior on the part of isps took on the left side with folks who talk about what the fcc yesterday which is try to open up a massive set of spectrum which is the kind of oxygen for mobile devices to we could have more wireless connectivity. and so to speak about we have alison for mobile future, and tim donovan from the competitive the carrier association and thee woolly out what the fcc did yesterday. in short, they induced or
what exactly happened and where we may not have approached but let's lay it out whether the fcc do yesterday on the? >> on behalf of the association we represent 100 wireless carriers from sprint and t-mobile. the different carriers can be shown that either at&t or verizon served and control more customers than all of my members combined for the 100 plus carriers. i think it shows how they have a meeting it was that both of the topics were discussed because they had several hearings on their own on the hill and on both sides of the committee and i know that both will remain a hot topic going forward. i'm going to try to tear this back to about one minute. going back to 81 the fcc made of
the first licenses available and that was divided up in each market between the two providers going to the wireline phone companies. the other going to a competitor. in 94, congress broke up its first duopoly by providing them with option authority. we could probably have a whole section on how it's paid for getting it through an important aspect is that it's a huge pay for because it generates a lot of money for the treasury for the use of a finite taxpayer so we have through the omnibus set up to 100 megahertz and a broad new competitors that several other of my members. this authority was expanded in
the balanced budget in beginninn that nobody is really saved the spectrum at an event the last option was 700 megahertz which was created through the switch to free up some of the spectrum. moving forward from that point we had a discussion of the jumpstarting opportunities and setting up this incentive option framework that came out through the broadband plan and how you can incentivize to relinquish some spectrum. and we talked about the next neutrality adopted yesterday and the congress adopted.
it was adopted in september 28 through the lobbying and comment proceeding that was adopted yesterday there's still work beyond that with the general option for the holding was updated. without a full order to read through from the commission yesterday about the direction that they are looking to go. >> the notice of the rules making -- spin that i would be surprised if we came in. how to prevent the company's
etc.. >> the order coming out was pretty much for everyone that has ever sat staring at their phone hoping to connect. this is good news and a process that we have been working on for years to get through the commission and we've seen this tremendous growth increasingly relying on and independently going forward. i think from our perspective the ecosystem and the equipment suppliers and application developers doing the work and noble so all of our members this was a good moment in opportunity to know that there will be spectrum in the pipeline years down the road from our view it was interesting to see all of
the chairman commissioners and staff spend a lot of time on this to move this item forward and i think that having more spectrum on the pipeline even though it's going to take a competitive process to get here and there is a lot of moving parts and i think at the end of the day this is good news for all consumers and wireless users and mobile innovation. >> i'm going to give it back to the government and then the thee that actually get the spectrum built off the network said it is a huge process into the
concerned was that there's very few companies or institutions with the wherewithal and the employee to actually do that but the concern is should we have innovation at a younger smaller company to be able to get into this game and maybe adjusting the rules so that you could have other companies with less capital and wherewithal. did the border address that balance at all? scenic effec effects of the tase and the bureau took to get this right the innovative companies to be able to participate in a big one was the geographic size.
we have a cellular market area and they are more granular. the original proposal would ask for economic carriers. they reached the economic areas to provide service in their home markets while allowing them to piece together the public peace that serve a larger footprint. it was much lobbied and fairly controversial aspect. where they resolved the findings for the broadcasters to
volunteer to participate in the process. they were able to gain access into the spectrum and be able to build that network. the letters are especially concerned about the government favoring some companies over others when it comes to the spectrum auction. did you know you would like this order so much? has beespinnaker think it is interesting we are here together. we had opposed any mechanism that would put the thumb on the scale for anyone participating in the open market. we had a record and they've been
very successful so the biggest take away is the one good debate about what they wanted out of it but at the end of the day we saw some strong interests and that is critical. we need a vibrant participation on the wireless side into strong participation on the broadcast side. they have been watching just to see what activity is going to be, what is going to be at stake. we were encouraged to see them spending a lot of time over the summer and the fall to help answer the broadcasters questions and i think at the end of the day we will have a bright side. >> mentioning how we got here and the budget act covers a big
question about how they play into the federal. so there's a big aspect of that's financial that you need to raise enough money to cover that we have already budgeted, is that correct? >> it's an interesting dynamic where the spectrum policy is passed and congress directed them to look at one of the factors. they are directed to make sure there's not an excessive concentration of spectrum and small businesses and rural carriers are able to access spectrum because it is very valuable and they will be showing up to bid when they
range from at&t to public service all came out with statements that set width of the rules adopted they are interested in participating in for a broadcaster looking at what is coming into seeing is this a good idea when they say i'm in it and i'm going to show up and play, that sends a signal they should take a look at participating. >> no one wants to fail. everyone wanted to be a success. congress laid out some objectives to fund the public safety network and also the deficit. so we want to make sure we are able to meet and exceed their goals and raise as much revenue
as possible. i think the border into the roadmap that we have seen from what folks have heard so far they see this as a great opportunity and hopefully the broadcasters will see the great economic opportunity as well. there are several that came in and another cochair stating how the goals are not exclusive and while it brings them to the table it can bring significant revenue. they have the largest numbers brought in by far the most revenue when you have large licenses and other reasons carriers are not interested in participating you see the cost drive down making sure there's a meaningful opportunity that shows up and plays by the rules
and has a chance to walk away from something and have that environment. >> so it floated down to the commission in the rulemaking? >> everyone is waiting to see the order and wants to see them succeed. it might be premature to take a victory lap until we get through the process and make sure that everyone is participating and we are able to maintain as much as possible t but the last thing i want to add is we are focusing on the carriers and what is at stake is the wireless users into the innovations from companies around the world making sure the network can support the traffic and anticipate what is coming down the road.
if you think about the broadcast spectrum think about setting up rabbit ears downstairs. it has a penetration for when the example you are in a hearing room being able to use your device or when you are at home. >> we have one or two minutes and we can go to the question for the incentive options otherwise i do have kind of a weird question. why is it that the broadcasters got the spectrum for free and there's a larger macro question with requirements and obligations they have to purchase a huge expense and now
when they give it up they get compensated for giving up a resource that they didn't buy in the first place. and why -- it seems like it is skewed towards the broadcast or radio but i would've sure you that right now using my mobile spectrum this event was going to be on c-span and i e-mailed people during those things. if i were watching tv at home it would be divorce court or something. [laughter] spinning it wasn't until 94 that congress look into that we shouldn't be allocating the spectrum we should be auctioning this off and having market forces that play into the
framework but rather than turning this area over that very valuable and finite you cannot turn on the machine and make more spectrum. this is it that they are in place to entice their own broadcasters to take a look at this and i think they deserve a lot of credit setting up a structure. they finished a test recently and there is a pathway forward tuesday on the air and serve the customers and to receive a portion without changing their business plan. >> i think this is a great opportunity and i look forward to seeing it play out.
>> there will be huge benefits for the taxpayers but because this is a way to increase competition we are also looking at a 2 billion-dollar benefit by having competition in the wireless industry so it serves a lot of goals. >> so they have to be incentivized so since we are speaking to a broad audience please give up your spectrum. and by cable it is fair. no matter how you feel about it you have to think the folks at the commission for a couple of brutal months so our sympathies to them and also thanks to the
congressional caucus and senator leahy on the house side and all the speakers. >> in case you missed any you can watch this meeting as well as yesterday's fcc session on open internet rules with the commission chairman anytime on our website c-span.org. yesterday eric shinseki went before the veterans affairs committee to talk about health care. that is at 10:30 a.m. on c-span.
here is some of what the secretary had to say. we are providing our veterans the high-quality care. this commitment mandates a commitment to quality and safety and american veterans deserve nothing less. they meet high standards. with that said as he pointed out, there are always areas in need of improvement. any allegation must come to us and be taken seriously and based on the background i followed most of my life and i now have a great privilege of caring for
people i went to the war and people that have sent to war and raised me in the profession when i was a youngster, any allegation that any adverse incidents like this. i could use stronger language but in deference to the committee, i won't. a veteran family i always try to put myself in their shoes about the appointment scheduling and phoenix.
if any of these allegations are true with regards to scheduling elsewhere where we'll get the issues that surfaced. if any allegations are true and unacceptable, to me, to the veterans and i will tell you the vast majority of the employees who come to work every day to do their best if any are substantiated by the inspector general, we will act. and i take tha the senators encouragement here to do something different, and sadder, i will. it is important however to allow the inspector general of the complete his duty which is to conduct an object of review and
provide us the results. second i've directed to them as some of you have noted the completed nationwide access review of all other healthcare facilities to ensure full compliance with our scheduling policy and as we have begun that we are already seeing reports where compliance is under the question and we have asked a number of cases to take a look. the president has agreed to but the chief assist us in our review of these allegations and any other issues we may find. we start with scheduling that we will go wherever they take us. he's a proven performer with management experience and i welcome his assistance.
i've known the neighbor's family for a long time. we served together for many years and i welcome the assistance. as we take these measures it's important to remember they conducted approximately 85 million outpatient clinic appointments last year. as a large integrated system they have been noted over 17 points of care including 150 medical centers and community-based clinics 300 veteran centers and community living centers, 104 rehabilitation treatment programs and of the mobile veteran centers to reach the most remote of the veterans. this is a demonstration of concern by this department
trying to made sure that every veteran in no matter where they live in this country and even in our overseas location have an opportunity to have access to quality health care. the employees provide exceptional care for the 6.5 million veterans and other beneficiaries annually. it's comparable meeting or exceeding standards in many areas to be fully transparent fostering the culture that because it evaluates to repeat them. every medical facility is accredited by the joint commission. the independent organization that ensures the comprehensive
evaluations into the joint commission recognized 19 hospitals and last year that increased to 32. additionally as the chairman pointed out the most recent index ranks satisfaction among the best in the nation be cool to wear better than the ratings for the private sector hospitals and overwhelming 95 or 96% of the veterans to use the health care indicate they would use us again next time they need to care. i want them to continue to have that level of trust. they continue to have full faith to the veterans and their families whenever any adverse event occurs. we participated in multiple
reviews every year to ensure the safety and quality of healthcare will continue to develop and sustain reliable systems and to train employees to detect and prevent healtprevent healthcare. i've detailed many significant health-care accomplishments in the vha over the past year in my written testimony. i appreciate the hard work of the employees and partners from the veterans service organization as i understand in this room. community stakeholders many of whom we deal with on a daily basis and dedicated volunteers. i deeply respect the role the congress and members of the committee played in serving the veterans and i continue to work with congress to better serve them all and again thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today
they put forth plans that address the long-term funding issue and we applaud them for their efforts and i know there's going to be more discussion in town this week on those attempts. others suggest that the political reality is we will have to settle for an infusion of cash into the highwa highwayt fund as a stopgap measure. where are you going to get the cash? there used to be ways to do it and it may be true that we can get an infusio infusion but it'y the long-term solution we need if we want to maintain a world-class infrastructure system.
this is like the movie every few years we wake up and have the same conversation about the funding and the same fights over the gas tax and the same scramble for money. the only problem in the recent years is you do know it is 20 years. don't get me wrong money is important. don't think that is all we have to do to get the infrastructure is working if you look at everything that is being discussed. many of those are somewhat in conflict but because they are wrong but what we are trying to do and spend our money. in fact, what everybody would agree to is we need a comprehensive forward-looking
them was the georgia appeals court judge to the u.s. district court. some liberal groups opposed the nomination. while he served in the georgia legislature, he voted to reinstate the version of the confederate flag. he opposed same-sex marriage and supported legislation that defined children as both born and unborn. the nomination was part of a deal with republican senators to allow all of the judicial nominees. this is about two hours.
please raise your right hand do you affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you chairman, sender to a good senator for being here for calling this hearing and hearing from us today. i would also like to thank president obama for the nomination and for the faith that he has put in me. now i would like to recognize people who are here with me both family and friend, the people that are simply the best thing that has eve had ever happened d have never messed a parent
teacher conference, recycled orr anything that's been important to me. behi me.ts were seated right behind me. my parents were ordained elders in the united methodist churchhu mad one of my college roommatesm from brownte university and her gother who i refer to as myfairy fairy godmother, two of my best friends and study group memberst who were part of a group of friends that get together everyl year and two of my compatriots from my time here in dc. i also have been life streaminga my five brothers abrams, and sid the honorable stacey abrams,
richard lewis and doctor mclean. i would also like to thank my u.s. attorney's office familyele and my family from the central united methodist church as well as the judge i clerked for. >> thank you members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. i would like to thank the chairman and his staff for the meeting.i also wt to tha fothe wao thanknk the senator fr the warm introduction and foroc. their support throughout this process. i have with me today my wife of 15 years on thursday although is am not sure a trip to dc is what
she had in mind although we will she wa celebrate ours anniversaryst yl thursday and my wife is at a qut kindergarten teacher in florida and i'm proud of what she doesh. to improve the lives of so many in the state. sitting behind me is the chief f on w i ser the georgia supreme court.entors one they are both mentors of mineut and ae me very astute members oe judiciary. as well as a friend of nowas a probably 30 years from when i was first legislative aide to
georgia , democratic congressman from georgia out of law school and also in dc. 21. when my father approximately years ago when i was 21 might buy their past but anything i've ever accomplished and confident it's because of the things theyh taught me in the time i had with them. i know they are very proud and excited for me. i am honored to be here and i want to thank the people that have thanked me i'm very i know appreciative of the support and. i appreciate the opportunity tot introduce my friendsheir and fa.
family. >> thank you senatorand blumenl and any members of the committee for making this day at a senate it. committee. we do appreciate it. thatnt to thanko thank presidena for giving me the greatest honos that i've ever have been practicing law, this nomination. i want to thank the senators for their remarks and support throughoutess. this process. there are several people i would like to introduce. frie my best friend into the love of my life. bonnie was a legal secretary for over 35 years and despite having to workbonnie coh for lawyers si to marry me and for that i will y forever grateful.who are likl judge stephanie and bob worked
together at the attorney general's office she's been a gl mentor type friend and a role nd someone that's been an inspiration throughout myughout career. we have young partners. they are two of the finest young lawyers and it's been my privilege to work with the career. also for me is pete robinson afr former democratic majority leader in the state senate.
there's a very special one and that is one of the most beloved atrneys, attorneys. when i came 15 years ago normane became my mentor and took me under his wayne and made me amad better lawyer. i would like to recognize my parents.n brooklyn, they were born in brooklyn new york, children of immigrants, children of the great depression and because of their family situation, they were unable toac achieve the education that theyt provided for their only son.ited my father enlisted in the armyad during world war ii he was a he ran a s disabled veteran and he ran a small business.he secrery and my mom was a secretary and because of their support and
sacrifice i was able to go to college and law school and leadw a life that led me toas thise aa moment before you today. i know they would be very proud. with that i would welcome any to >>estions. thank you for holding t this hearing.aring and i am honored to be here to answer your questions. i also want to thank the senators for their kind introduction and support throughout the process and would like to thank president obama for the honor that he has given me in this nomination is something i'm very proud of and it's the highest honor i can think of achieving. i have quite a family here today so i willan thin go quickly. my husband is here and he is tho love of my life and the persont. that has been there for me every day throughout this process. i also have with me mythe lovof
7-year-old son who's a firsts grader in atlanta georgia and has enjoyed his trip to dc it's been a very special trip fordish him.in my mother is also here and she's had a long career in public education and very excited abouy georgia.her upcoming retirement. my in-laws are here and they've also both retired from public education and i'm happy to have them here today. i have my brother and sister-in-law i also have another law partner and ind the appreciated the support for the
other staff and attorneys that have given me and i'm very proud to have been wit them with me t. inank you very much., chairmrank >> thank you ranking member. i would like to think about kennedy and senator's chambers and ice extent for the introduction as well as the process. bipartisan effort throughout this process. thank you also president barack obama for this nomination. i have some very special people with me. dieminat first my husband of 13 years, fellow attorney seated behind me. he is my source of inspiration and all of my professional and personal endeavors. my hu oursban daughter's and 10-year-d fifth-grader graciously made the sacrifice i thank them and their
teachers allowing me to do so with the understanding they will be making up schoolwork. i also have behind me my mother who is a retired public school teacher from right here in themh public school system and also my siblings. ster valer my sister and my brother. my father is with me in spiritho as he always has been and i havr with me a person that served ase a father figure for my entire life and i also have with me in my beautiful teenage nieces. i would also like to acknowledge myic school te mother-in-law wha retired public school teacher and principal couldn't make the trip today that she supports me from her homets me from in colud
finally i would like to acknowledge my colleagues and staff.ey're keepin they are keeping things smooth through in washington. washington. >> thank you all of you for your opening statements and most important, for your records in public service and i want to san again how important the hearing im if i want to welcome the chief justice thompson, chief i want to judge yoweu honor us by your presence here today and i'm sorry you had a bit ofr us by yo difficulty that you werece mentioned by senators isakson and chambliss. like you these individuals performed a great deal ofli server the rke the career alreay and the decocisions that we make will be to put you in a place
where for many people seeking justice you will be the last person making a decision is wilt anotheunder there would be a rif appeal you will be the source of justice for them and for this h hougon islast per immensely it and we are going to approach it with a close scrutiny that it deserves in every instance and i would like to begin with some questions if i may. as i look through the responses to the question i noted that there were no remarks or speechs drafts, nothing in writing of that kind's qunair over the coe,urse of your career roks flic life that you never deliver a prepared speech or submit for example to the judiciary committee when you served in the legislature any prepared remarks?r a prepar >> it wasn't the practice of
myself when i was serving in the general assembly to speak regularly before the committees. i never spoke on any delay did not offer other than a bill i was asked to carry a fight toree stay put and i had to testified on that matter. it's not the practice of the general assembly and i don't think now that witnesses submit any written code testimony and that isn't my practice.bill ti i generally spoke from the bills that i was presenting. >> on some of the videos thatly are on your service you seem tot be reading from something did you keep none of those?>> on so tonight i was reading from theub bills i was presenting at these texts? i wasn't speakin speaking as ofe supporter i was asking legislators to support the billw but whatas presentinout i was te post the text of th the bill.hen
>> on the issue for example of the women's reproductive rights i know that you have spoken passionately about the views on that topic on the rights of women's reproductive health ca care. on msition given any public comments on the reproductive cosponso rights.n the i cosponsored some bills and i also voted on a couple of amendments on the floor of the e house but i didn't author and i had no authorship in that i've never given any speeches to the rights. i had no role in drafting the legislation.
it may be of interest. can you assure us there were no materials that are irrelevant to questions 12 c. and d.? >> i appreciate the committees s invoked as an opportunity to submit with respect to the original responses to questionse the original questionnaire was exhausted. i did all of the searches that e info were available and the newspapers that covered the are. are not searchable. in addition i reviewed applications and questionnaires of those that have prior legislative service to what thee had done with respect to their
submissions i didn't know they had submitted a listing of bills that they have cosponsored. i could have easily provided that the above with respect but asks for my matters on publicico policy i did interview bill cited not cosponsor or author or have no interest in cosponsoring if i had nothing to do with drafting to be my public statement. in that regard i did have additional resources to provide the committee with everythingrer available that meant going todi georgia public broadcasting who at the time made videos oflistis legislative sessions. the information from 2002 to 2004 was on the servers that wasn't searchable. it had three p. packed into a different format. it took me six weeks of almosttc daily contact to the private data public rod casting that i
policy partf my publih respect to question 12 c. the adult with public speeches i might have given while i was a legislator. i've been a judge for ten years. on the advice i destroyed my files from my old office which would have possibly contained references of when i spoke to a certain civic organizations that because that information wasn't, available i traveled 250 miles to my hometown and i reviewed hometow 515 newspapers roughly ahly a td somebo to rees and then hired someone to review the daily tion newspaper to provide additional submissions and by appreciative to have done that some of the
colleagues have been completely forthcoming and frank in this committee in terms of providing materials to qualify and put in jeopardy so i would urge you if there are any other arterials that are discernible that you would provide them as quickly as possible when they go to some remarks you've made in your career if i may. when you were a candidate you told the audience at that time i am proud of my record you don't have to guess where i stand i oppose same-sex marriage and he went on i have a record that tells you exactly what i stand
for. wouldn't your co- authorship of those amendments in the georgia legislature dealing with reproductive rights be indicative of how you will serve as a judge on the district court in georgia if you are concerned? >> i did make the comment that you referred to later in that same speech to the separation of powers and above rule making authority vested in the legislature and they shouldn't be policymakers. i've maintained for the entire career however i agree with the comments i made that gave the wrong impression to the audience i was speaking with respect to the job i was seeking. i should have done a better job of delineating the different roles between being a legislator and being a judge. however i think that my record
of disposing roughly 14,000 cases demonstrates unequivocally and how i decide the cases. specifically dealt with reproductive rights or the rights to choose. all but one case that dealt with georgia's statute to receive an abortion it was on the appeal from the petition to the juvenile court and other than that, n and though it's true tht throughout my judicial career as a trial court judge and appellate court judge that i've dealt with issues of those constitutional magnitude. >> so other than that one case it where you stand on that issue of the reproductive rights we would have to go back to the actions of the georgia state
legislature? >> the best evidence is the type that i have been. i don't think that my record over a decade old is indicative of what might be on the federal district court. i was disposing of the cases ruling for plaintiffs and defendants in the states and ruling against the state is the besthat isthe best evidence of f judge i would be. >> where do you stand now on the right to choose the? >> i think that it would be inappropriate and in a violatios of the code of conduct i am bound by the state any position on those matters but i can state unequivocally that my personal position on the matter or any other is irrelevant to how i have decided cases the past ten years, how i've analyzed issues
and i'm committed to following the rule of law and always, always giving that if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed. stomaching that the constitution's right to privacy. >> in your response to the questionnaire before the committee you say that you are a strict constructionist is that your general philosophy? >> at the time that i made those comments transferring to the court of appeals was i intended to convey was my fidelity to the court of the law into the role of the judge in the democracy and intended to convey my respect to not decide the cases of the public opinion but based on the faithfulness to the rule of law that demonstrates what i've done. >> normally a strict constructionist is one that looks very specifically and the
judges would say faithfully to text of the constitution and the philosophy is to avoid going beyond what is actually written is that a fair description? >> it's my understanding yes it is a form of constitutional interpretation. >> in 2004, you said the right of privacy is not in the context or in the text of the constitution. >> i'm not familiar with having said that. i would be happy to respond later if i can figure out where it comes from. >> well, you said it in 2004. but what they give you a chance to explain. if the right of privacy isn't specifically delineated or described in the text of the constitution, is it still equally valid as a rule of law?
.. rights of privacy, fundamental rights, and use a constitutional interpretation model that is based on precedents of the 11th circuit. >> so you would now allow -- not allow your view of the constitution would interfere with any way with the right to private individuals that would come before you? >> absolutely not, senator. >> let me ask you about another part of your record. he supported legislation that would require doctors to report the number of abortions they perform. would you tell us why you supported that legislation? dot you k it would you tell us why you supported that legislation? don't you think it was ella devised? >> let me respond this way.